Hey people I finally got my Core Book today. Man I thought I was going to explode if it didnt arrive soon. But finally it's in my claws.
Well I've been skimming some parts and focussing mostly on a few points that I have been looking forward to most.
And now that I've seen them, I have a few questions mostly to understand the motives about why they are the way they are now.
Let's start with Ranger animal companions:
As it seems rangers don't have the same choice of animal companions. The list in the Ranger entry leaves out things such as Big cats and crocodiles.
Is there any particular balancing reason behind that? I thought especially things like tigers make awesomely stylish companions for rangers. Are they too powerful for rangers for some reason, or do their abilities work too powerfully in combination with Rangers?
Next thing is Two-Weapon fighting:
The feat is effectively still the same. I thought it deserved some major changes. Have there been made improvements to followup feats from the TWF tree or does it really still suck so bad that you'd run as well without all those feats spent at all and a two-handed weapon?
That's it for now, but I might come up with more questions later.
Thanks in advance for answers.
Creative Director
|
As it seems rangers don't have the same choice of animal companions. The list in the Ranger entry leaves out things such as Big cats and crocodiles.
Is there any particular balancing reason behind that? I thought especially things like tigers make awesomely stylish companions for rangers. Are they too powerful for rangers for some reason, or do their abilities work too powerfully in combination with Rangers?
Rangers are combat characters, whereas druids are more spellcastery. Since a druid is, in theory, not supposed to be the combat focus, we felt it was okay to give them more combat-focused larger animal companions. For the ranger, you have a class that's built to be a combat class. His animal companions are smaller and used more often as scouts or messengers or support; they're not supposed to be big combat elements of the class. Put simply, giving a ranger a strong combat pet makes them too good, since that adds on top of a ranger's already quite good combat powers.
That said, letting a ranger get any of the druid's larger list of companions is a really simple house rule to put in play, and I wouldn't be surprised to some day see us produce a feat or a variant class ability that grants rangers better companions (perhaps at the cost of losing another class feature if they're not spending a feat to get the power-up).
Next thing is Two-Weapon fighting:
The feat is effectively still the same. I thought it deserved some major changes. Have there been made improvements to followup feats from the TWF tree or does it really still suck so bad that you'd run as well without all those feats spent at all and a two-handed weapon?
We did a lot of work to try to make the three melee styles (dual weapon, two-handed weapon, and weapon & shield) be viable choices. But that said... they're not all intended to do the same thing. If you want just raw damage, then you SHOULD be looking at using a two handed weapon. If you want defensive powers, look at the weapon/shield option. The two-weapon option is really for the character who doesn't want to do lots of damage in one hit but rather has lots of opportunities to make more attacks. He effectively trades damage per hit away for the advantage of more attacks. For someone like a rogue who has extra damage on top of attacks, two weapon fighting is arguably a better choice, since it gives them more attacks and thus more opportunities to do sneak attack damage. For the fighter or barbarian or paladin or whoever who just wants to put all his eggs in one basket and do all his damage with one or a few big hits, two-handed weapons are the right choice.
Balancing the three fighting styles so they all do the same damage is an error, in other words, since two-weapon and weapon-shield give other advantages over just raw damage.
As it seems rangers don't have the same choice of animal companions. The list in the Ranger entry leaves out things such as Big cats and crocodiles.
Is there any particular balancing reason behind that? I thought especially things like tigers make awesomely stylish companions for rangers. Are they too powerful for rangers for some reason, or do their abilities work too powerfully in combination with Rangers?Rangers are combat characters, whereas druids are more spellcastery. Since a druid is, in theory, not supposed to be the combat focus, we felt it was okay to give them more combat-focused larger animal companions. For the ranger, you have a class that's built to be a combat class. His animal companions are smaller and used more often as scouts or messengers or support; they're not supposed to be big combat elements of the class. Put simply, giving a ranger a strong combat pet makes them too good, since that adds on top of a ranger's already quite good combat powers.
That said, letting a ranger get any of the druid's larger list of companions is a really simple house rule to put in play, and I wouldn't be surprised to some day see us produce a feat or a variant class ability that grants rangers better companions (perhaps at the cost of losing another class feature if they're not spending a feat to get the power-up).
We did a lot of work to try to make the three melee styles (dual weapon, two-handed weapon, and weapon & shield) be viable choices. But that said... they're not all intended to do the same thing. If you want just raw damage, then you SHOULD be looking at using a two handed weapon. If you want defensive powers, look at the...Next thing is Two-Weapon fighting:
The feat is effectively still the same. I thought it deserved some major changes. Have there been made improvements to followup feats from the TWF tree or does it really still suck so bad that you'd run as well without all those feats spent at all and a two-handed weapon?
Yes I see the reasoning behind the companions. I guess it makes sense. I might introduce the feat for a better companion to my group as soon as we start playing.
About the two-weapon fighting some of my grief is about Rangers, they've always come with the Archery or TWF options, and TWF was almost always discarded, because archery has always beaten it in every respect. It granted the same amount of extra attacks, with only one weapon needed (so all the expensive magical enhancement could be focused on one weapon and still spread on several attacks), had range, could do d8 damage on both the normal and extra attack at a penalty of only -2, while TWF had to go with a light off hand weapon reducing it to d8 and d6 dices at best and didn't pose any need for a high strength score or en extra Weapon Finesse feat. The only advantage the TWF variant really ever had is a flanking bonus and attacks of opportunity, that ranged combatants don't get.
anyway Thanks a lot for explaining!
|
Yes I see the reasoning behind the companions. I guess it makes sense. I might introduce the feat for a better companion to my group as soon as we start playing.
About the two-weapon fighting some of my grief is about Rangers, they've always come with the Archery or TWF options, and TWF was almost always discarded, because archery has always beaten it in every respect. It granted the same amount of extra attacks, with only one weapon needed (so all the expensive magical enhancement could be focused on one weapon and still spread on several attacks), had range, could do d8 damage on both the normal and extra attack at a penalty of only -2, while TWF had to go with a light off hand weapon reducing it to d8 and d6 dices at best and didn't pose any need for a high strength score or en extra Weapon Finesse feat. The only advantage the TWF variant really ever had is a flanking bonus and attacks of opportunity, that ranged combatants don't get.
anyway Thanks a lot for explaining!
You're also assuming that with the advent of Ranger's being able to function in medium armor, that they will still wish for high dex. Since they can afford to drop dex a little, two weapon fighters now have a decent amount of AC going into things. The bump of the hit dice up to D10 gives them more survivability, in the end they aren't the Dex monkeys they used to be if you GO TWF.
And I'd argue that the only benefit that TWF Rangers get is strictly the AoO and flank bonuses.
A TWF ranger can outright dump Dex now, is the thing. Go into it with 18 or 20 Strength, pick up Double Slice at 6th... not too shabby. I find it interesting as well that Improved Shield Bash is on the TWF-ranger list.